05-16-1994 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

REOtTIST FOR COl^CIL ACTION HATE: May 4, 1994 ITEM NO.: Departnitnt Approval: Name Jeanne A. Mabusih Title BuilJme Sl Zoning AdminiiUfalor Administrator Review) ed:A'^enda Section: Zoning Item Description: #1912 Tim Hillman, 4(X) l^af Street - Variances - Resolution Additional Exhibits J - Copy of Access Easement in Favor of Property at 398 Leaf Street Brief Review of Application Applicant seeks approval of street ami -^ide setback variances for a two-story addition to the existing residence, more than doubling the size of the existing 752.4 s.f. house (addition * 1,960.8 s.f.). The addition will encroach no closer to the front/.street lot line than the existing residence. The current residence meets the required 30' side setback from the south lot line. The proposed addition will require a setback variance proposed at 25.2’. The applicant has advised that the entire foundation of the e.xisting structure shall be replaced. Four feet of fill will be installed beneath the new foundation. The existing resideiKe has historically had basement fltxxling proolems. The Planning Commission was asked to consider relocating the residence in order to conform moie closely to the required setback sundards of the zoning district. In consideration of existing accessory struemres and the limited building envelope, review Exhibit H. a 73 ’ long structure could not be placed on the property meeting front and rear setbacks. There was discussion concerning the relocation of the 10 ’ x 10 ’ entry addition at the south side of the proposed expansion Applicant advised that based on the interior plans this was the only location for the enirv to the residence. The property owner to the north was concerned that drainage problems would be intensified with the new addition. The City Engineer has reviewed the proposal and recommended that drainage from roof be directed to the southwest comer draining eventually through the culvert adjacent to Leaf Street. It was also noted that with the additional filling around the foundation that the desired drainage could be achieved. The Planning Commission also addressed the exterior storage violations on the propeny, asking applicant why vehicles parked to the rear lot line could not be stored within the large storage structures. Applicant advised that he is a car collector and the structures already contained vehicles. The Planninu Commission advised that all exterior storage violations must